| reply to r81984
Re: Makes Sense said by r81984:In the US GSM has better coverage than CDMA, so 99% of Verizon customers can just switch to ATT so ATT can still profit after paying Apple for exclusivity. Please show me your proof of that.
Coverage maps for Verizon versus ATT show otherwise, that CDMA has better coverage nationwide. |
|
|
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| said by fifty nine:said by r81984:In the US GSM has better coverage than CDMA, so 99% of Verizon customers can just switch to ATT so ATT can still profit after paying Apple for exclusivity. Please show me your proof of that. Coverage maps for Verizon versus ATT show otherwise, that CDMA has better coverage nationwide. CDMA + analog have better coverage than GSM.
GSM has better coverage thatn CDMA.
CDMA roaming is more than Verizon and GSM roaming is more than just ATT.
ATT + roaming means better coverage than CDMA.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by r81984:In the US GSM has better coverage than CDMA, so 99% of Verizon customers can just switch to ATT so ATT can still profit after paying Apple for exclusivity. Please show me your proof of that. He can't because it's not true. I do wish that he would stop trying to spread that falsehood.
Whether he wants to accept it or not, CDMA has more coverage in the US than does gsm. |
|
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:said by fifty nine:said by r81984:In the US GSM has better coverage than CDMA, so 99% of Verizon customers can just switch to ATT so ATT can still profit after paying Apple for exclusivity. Please show me your proof of that. Coverage maps for Verizon versus ATT show otherwise, that CDMA has better coverage nationwide. CDMA + analog have better coverage than GSM. GSM has better coverage thatn CDMA. CDMA roaming is more than Verizon and GSM roaming is more than just ATT. ATT + roaming means better coverage than CDMA. Analog was shut off a couple of years ago, and now it's all CDMA.
So CDMA does indeed have better coverage than GSM in the US. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| said by fifty nine:Analog was shut off a couple of years ago, and now it's all CDMA. So CDMA does indeed have better coverage than GSM in the US. Nope. GSM has better coverage.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
1 edit | reply to SteelerRaw
said by SteelerRaw :
Whether he wants to accept it or not, CDMA has more coverage in the US than does gsm.
Try driving across the US and you will quickly learn GSM has better coverage.
I will admit CDMA has better coverage when that becomes true.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
| said by r81984:said by SteelerRaw :
Whether he wants to accept it or not, CDMA has more coverage in the US than does gsm.
Try driving across the US and you will quickly learn GSM has better coverage. I will admit CDMA has better coverage when that becomes true. Then you should be admitting it now. CDMA has more coverage than gsm. Sorry. |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to r81984
said by r81984:said by SteelerRaw :
Whether he wants to accept it or not, CDMA has more coverage in the US than does gsm.
Try driving across the US and you will quickly learn GSM has better coverage. I will admit CDMA has better coverage when that becomes true. It is true. CDMA has much better coverage than GSM - and don't get everyone started on VZW's 3G coverage compared to AT&T's 3G coverage. AT&T is far behind compared to VZW's 3G footprint.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
1 edit | reply to DarnellP
Nope GSM has more coverage than CDMA.
Seriously take a drive across the US, you will find out real quick the lack of CDMA coverage.
GSM Coverage: »www.coveragemaps.com/pubs/GSM_Am···009A.pdf
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
 RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | reply to r81984
said by r81984:Nope. GSM has better coverage. Please link to where where you got this information.
--
One nation, under Zod! |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
·T-Mobile US
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:said by fifty nine:Analog was shut off a couple of years ago, and now it's all CDMA. So CDMA does indeed have better coverage than GSM in the US. Nope. GSM has better coverage. You're both wrong.
850 has better coverage than 1900. That is a fact.
GSM vs CDMA "coverage" comparisons defy logic.
ATT (850GSM) has better coverage than Sprint (1900 CDMA). Yet Verizon (850CDMA) has better coverage than ATT. Go figure. It's almost as if the determining factor in a networks size is its age, and what frequency it's on.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to r81984
Not necessarily.
In the US, especially in rural areas, it comes down to 'who is licensed for Cellular band'.
In many rural areas (Carolinas, parts of Oregon, most of the northwestern plains), its a CDMA carrier. Eg. USCC, VZW/Alltel, and a handfull of other rural carriers have 850MHz licenses on CDMA covering cell A+B. A good example of this is Northern Calfornia, where AT&T/T-Mobile are 1900MHz, and have spotty coverage, while VZW and USCC have built out 850MHz extensively on CDMA
850MHz buildout requirements are high vs 1900.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
StojkoPremium
join:2007-10-20
St John's NL Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
·NBTel now Aliant
·FreePhoneLine
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:said by SteelerRaw :
Whether he wants to accept it or not, CDMA has more coverage in the US than does gsm.
Try driving across the US and you will quickly learn GSM has better coverage. I will admit CDMA has better coverage when that becomes true. Verizon CDMA coverage is FAR superior to AT&T's GSM coverage in the US... |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
1 edit | reply to en102
Are you serious??
I have been through rural areas all over this country that get GSM while they do not get Verizon. Areas where people say you can't get cell service, but my GSM works (sometimes not on att, but on other GSM towers) With GSM roaming ATT has better coverage.
It is obvious that anyone that says verizon is better has never traveled.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Yes I am. I have both Sprint (roams onto VZW, etc) and AT&T.
In parts of So Oregon on AT&T, there's NO service at all (not even emergency), yet I had service on 1x (Sprint).
In parts of SloCal (San Luis Obispo County), you'll get 'emergency only' on GSM, but decent service on Sprint/VZW. Why ? Because CellOne SLO doesn't have roaming agreements with AT&T (does with T-Mo).
I'm not saying that there is better coverage on one service vs. another... I'm saying that in rural areas, the carrier on 850MHz will have better coverage. Try some rural AZ/NM/CO/OR/ID coverage and see what you get.
»people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/N···ll_A.gif
»people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/N···ll_B.gif
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to r81984
That's a GSMA coverage map... their maps are pretty exaggerated in general. Since you were 'driving', I'm assuming that you were on highways/interstates. You may want to try some of the 'roads less travelled'.
I take all of these 'maps' (AT&T/VZW/Sprint/T-Mobile) with a grain of salt. VZW's especially, as its an 'all or nothing' coverage map.
When I drove from Sutherlin, OR to Reedsport, OR, AT&T's maps were pretty accurate, lost sevice ~1 mile off of I-5, regained at Elkton and lost again until Reedsport. Sprint (roaming on VZW) had coverage from I-5 through Elkton, and lost service nearly the same time as AT&T. Service regained a few miles closer to Reedsport.
VZW map shows continuous coverage. Sprint shows all roaming (duh). No carrier has service in Loon Lake, OR.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Stojko
I agree as well. VZW has an 850MHz license in almost every market, while AT&T has 850MHz, many are in urban areas. I have not been many places that do not have service on either, but where I have, there has been CDMA coverage, and no GSM.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
